Skip to main content


You are viewing the new article page. Let us know what you think. Return to old version

Research article | Open | Published:

Does formaldehyde have a causal association with nasopharyngeal cancer and leukaemia?



The South Korean criteria for occupational diseases were amended in July 2013. These criteria included formaldehyde as a newly defined occupational carcinogen, based on cases of “leukemia or nasopharyngeal cancer caused by formaldehyde exposure”. This inclusion was based on the Internal Agency for Research on Cancer classification, which classified formaldehyde as definite human carcinogen for nasopharyngeal cancer in 2004 and leukemia in 2012.


We reviewed reports regarding the causal relationship between occupational exposure to formaldehyde in Korea and the development of these cancers, in order to determine whether these cases were work-related.


Previous reports regarding excess mortality from nasopharyngeal cancer caused by formaldehyde exposure seemed to be influenced by excess mortality from a single plant. The recent meta-risk for nasopharyngeal cancer was significantly increased in case-control studies, but was null for cohort studies (excluding unexplained clusters of nasopharyngeal cancers). A recent analysis of the largest industrial cohort revealed elevated risks of both leukemia and Hodgkin lymphoma at the peak formaldehyde exposure, and both cancers exhibited significant dose-response relationships. A nested case-control study of embalmers revealed that mortality from myeloid leukemia increased significantly with increasing numbers of embalms and with increasing formaldehyde exposure. The recent meta-risks for all leukemia and myeloid leukemia increased significantly. In South Korea, a few cases were considered occupational cancers as a result of mixed exposures to various chemicals (e.g., benzene), although no cases were compensated for formaldehyde exposure. The peak formaldehyde exposure levels in Korea were 2.70–14.8 ppm in a small number of specialized studies, which considered anatomy students, endoscopy employees who handled biopsy specimens, and manufacturing workers who were exposed to high temperatures.


Additional evidence is needed to confirm the relationship between formaldehyde exposure and nasopharyngeal cancer. All lymphohematopoietic malignancies, including leukemia, should be considered in cases with occupational formaldehyde exposure.


The South Korean Schedule for the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Act was amended in July 2013 to provide specific criteria for the recognition of occupational diseases, including occupational cancer. This amendment increased the official recognition from 9 cancers and 9 carcinogens to 21 cancers and 23 carcinogens. For example, the amendment formally recognized “leukemia and nasopharyngeal cancer [NPC] caused by formaldehyde [formaldehyde] exposure” [1, 2]. However, there are few detailed scientific reviews that have considered the relationship between formaldehyde exposure and leukemia in Korea.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) officially classified formaldehyde as a “definite human carcinogen” for NPC in 2004 and for leukemia in 2012 [3, 4]. Other authorities have also acknowledged the possibly carcinogenic role of formaldehyde, including the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the European Union Occupational Disease Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures (EU CLP) guidelines, and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) [5,6,7]. However, the 2010 amendment of the International Labor Organization (ILO) guidelines did not reach a consensus regarding whether occupational formaldehyde exposure was directly linked to NPC or leukemia [8]. Nevertheless, formaldehyde-related cancers are included in the lists of recognized occupational diseases in France, Denmark, Taiwan, and Malaysia [9,10,11].

Given the international trend towards recognizing formaldehyde-related occupational disease, and the absence of Korean reviews, we reviewed epidemiological studies and other evidence from Korea. We also present points for consideration during the process of determining whether formaldehyde-related NPC and leukemia should be considered work-related.


We initially reviewed various scientific papers, including many epidemiological studies, regarding the causal relationship between formaldehyde exposure and cancer. Second, we reviewed various scientific papers, industrial reports, occupational exposure level reports, population data, and task force reports regarding exposure in Korean. Third, we reviewed various reports and epidemiological studies (including cohort studies, case-control studies, meta-analyses, reviews, and experimental studies) regarding the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde. Fourth, we investigate the national regulations regarding officially recognized occupational diseases and the international classifications for carcinogenicity. Finally, we considered the issues that could influence or determine the causal relationship between occupational exposure and cancer.


Use and exposure in South Korea

Formaldehyde is mainly used in the production of various resins, although it is also used extensively as an intermediate during the manufacture of various industrial chemicals and directly as an aqueous disinfectant [3, 4]. The highest average exposures (2–5 ppm; 2.5–6.1 mg/m3) were measured during furniture and floor varnishing, textile finishing, fur treatment, in the garment industry, and in certain jobs at manufactured board mills and foundries. Short-term exposures to high levels (≥3 ppm; ≥3.7 mg/m3) have been reported for embalmers and pathologists [3].

In South Korea, employees who are exposed to formaldehyde have regular mandatory health examinations, which are mandatory for workers who are exposed to workplace hazards. Approximately 18,000 employees had formaldehyde-related health examinations during 2008, which accounted for 2.07% of all specific health examinations. Almost all specific health examinations were performed for people who worked in the manufacturing industry or in health and social work activities (Table 1).

Table 1 Number of workers examined special health check for formaldehyde by types of industries and years in Korea, 2001–2010

Table 2 shows the formaldehyde exposure levels using a threshold limit value-time weighted average (TLV-TWA), based on national data regarding working environment measurements from 2002 to 2010. The highest number of samples was observed in industries that manufactured chemicals and chemical products, which was followed by the manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semitrailers, and non-furniture wood and cork products [12].

Table 2 Top 15 number of samples of measurement of concentration of work-environmental formaldehyde by sub-categories of industries in Korea, 2002–2010

Table 3 shows the results of the formaldehyde exposure levels based on results from academic reports in Korea. The maximum exposure level was 5.01 ppm in histological laboratories from nine general hospitals [13]. The maximum formaldehyde exposure level was 3.91 ppm among 80 students in a gross anatomy laboratory, which was sampled five times in four areas [14]. The maximum formaldehyde exposure level was 14.77 ppm among 48 workers in the endoscopy units of four general hospitals [15].

Table 3 Cross-sectional studies about workplace measurements of formaldehyde in Korea

The highest concentration of formaldehyde was 0.029 ppm in the compounding process of two tire manufacturing plants [16]. A furniture manufacturing factory had a formaldehyde concentration of 2.7 ppm when handling wet veneer at 150 °C [17]. The maximum formaldehyde exposure level was 0.258 ppm among 62 nurses in two university hospitals [18].

Epidemiological studies


The main epidemiological results for NPC have been obtained from a National Cancer Institute (NCI) cohort that included 10 plants that produced or used formaldehyde. The results revealed a significantly increase risk of death because of NPC and dose-response relationships with both peak and cumulative formaldehyde exposures [19]. The strength of the associations weakened and the dose-response relationships for cumulative exposure levels disappeared after 10 years of follow-up [20]. Marsh et al. reported that this result was related to the effect of the first factory, and they reported that the excess death because of NPC was the result of a work history involving silversmithing or other metal processing [21, 22]. However, the IARC committee concluded that the effect modification based on silversmithing or other confounding could not explain the excess death because of NPC [4]. Another cohort study of a British chemical plant, an American clothing manufacturer, a Finish cancer registry, and an Italian plastic factory did not detect a significant risk of formaldehyde-related NPC, with the exception of an unexplained cluster of deaths because of NPC at plant 1 in the NCI cohort [23,24,25,26,27,28] (Table 4). Several case-control studies have also reported a significant relationship or dose-response relationship between the highest formaldehyde exposure and NPC [29,30,31]. However, we did not detect significant relationships in other studies [32,33,34,35] (Table 5). The results from a meta-analysis (excluding plant 1 of the NCI cohort) are shown in Table 6, and the meta-risk was 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40–1.29) [36,37,38].

Table 4 Cohort studies of formaldehyde exposures and nasopharyngeal cancer
Table 5 Case-control studies of formaldehyde exposure and nasopharyngeal cancer
Table 6 Meta-analysis of formaldehyde exposure and nasopharyngeal cancer

Lymphohematopoietic malignancies

Six of the seven mortality studies involving professional workers (e.g., embalmers, funeral directors, pathologists, and anatomists) revealed positive associations between formaldehyde exposure and lymphohematopoietic malignancies (LHM) [39,40,41,42,43,44,45] (Table 7). The NCI cohort compared deaths from 2004 and 1994, and found that the strength of association between formaldehyde exposure and death because of leukemia and myeloid leukemia was weakened. Furthermore, the peak-exposure category (≥4.0 ppm) exhibited dose-response relationships with LHM, myeloid leukemia, and Hodgkin lymphoma [46,47,48]. Three cohort studies failed to detect a significantly increased risk of death [23,24,25,26]. Three case-control studies of formaldehyde exposure and leukemia also failed to detect a significantly increased risk [49,50,51]. A nested case-control study of funeral professionals revealed that the risks of non-lymphoid LHM or myeloid leukemia increased with working experience [52] (Table 8). Table 9 shows results from a meta-analysis of the relationship between formaldehyde exposure and leukemia [37, 38, 53,54,55]. The risk estimate for all leukemia was 1.05 (95% CI: 0.93–1.20) when researchers included the recent NCI cohort and excluded proportionate mortality studies [38]. The meta-risks including the NCI cohort and American funeral industries were 1.53 (95% CI: 1.11–2.21) for all leukemia and 2.47 (95% CI:1.42–4.27) for myeloid leukemia [55]. Nevertheless, researchers have not reached a consensus regarding any causal association or dose-response relationship between formaldehyde exposure and LHM, including myeloid leukemia [56, 57]. However, there appears to be a causal association between formaldehyde exposure, and especially peak exposures of ≥4 ppm, and all LHM (including Hodgkin lymphoma but not leukemia).

Table 7 Cohort studies of formaldehyde exposures and exposures and lymphohematopoietic malignancies
Table 8 Case-control studies of formaldehyde exposure and lymphohemtopoietic malignancies
Table 9 Meta-analysis of formaldehyde exposure and lymphohemtopoietic malignancies

Biological plausibility

There is no clear carcinogenic mechanism regarding formaldehyde exposure and NPC or LHM. However, formaldehyde exposure can lead to the formation of DNA-protein crosslinks in vitro, as well as genotoxicity in human nasal cells and disruption of bone marrow stem cells, hematopoietic stem cells, circulating progenitor cells, and primitive pluripotent stem cells [58, 59]. Chromosomal aneuploidy in circulating myeloid progenitor cells has also been identified among healthy workers who were exposed to formaldehyde [60].

Criteria for recognizing formaldehyde as an occupational carcinogen

The IARC classified formaldehyde as a definite human carcinogen (Group 1) for NPC in 2004 and leukemia (especially myeloid leukemia) in 2012. Formaldehyde was also classified as a suspected human carcinogen (Group 2A) for sino-nasal cancer in 2012 [3, 4]. The American National Toxicology Program (NTP) also classified formaldehyde as a ‘known human carcinogen’ in 2011 [61]. Furthermore, the EU CLP classified formaldehyde as a class 1B carcinogen, which indicates that the substance has presumed carcinogenic potential in humans, based on experimental animal data [6].

The ILO includes 20 carcinogens on its list of occupational cancers, although it does not define the related cancers. The tripartite commission of ILO included formaldehyde on its list of potential carcinogens, although formaldehyde was not included in the final list in 2009, as employers demanded a deeper review of the data [8, 9]. South Korea, France, Denmark, Malaysia, and Taiwan have clearly recognized the relationship between occupational cancer and formaldehyde exposure [9,10,11]. France also recognized that NPC could be caused by exposure to formaldehyde or its polymers in 2009 [10]. However, the list of recognized occupational diseases in Finland does not include formaldehyde-related cancers, although it was considered in the “Memorandum from the Occupational Cancer Working Group 2013” [62]. Moreover, the EU only recognizes a relationship between formaldehyde exposure and NPC, as there is insufficient epidemiological evidence regarding LHM [63].

Compensation cases and considerations for approval

South Korea has not compensated any cases that were related to formaldehyde exposure itself, although some cases have been compensated after mixed exposures to other chemicals. In 2012, a 61-year-old man developed multiple myeloma after working at a poultry farm for 16 years and being exposed to agricultural chemicals (pesticides and/or organic solvents, such as formaldehyde), with an average estimated formaldehyde exposure level of 17.53 ppm [64]. A 43-year-old man was diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndrome after working in a furniture manufacturing factory for 22 years. In 2013, the man’s tasks involved cutting and fabricating medium-density fiberboard, as well as pasting and polishing veneer. He was exposed to benzene and formaldehyde (a TWA concentration of 0.312 ppm/8 h), which corresponded to a cumulative level of 6962–10,016 ppm·hour, and a cumulative benzene exposure of 1.88–11.25 ppm·year [65].

Recognition criteria and consideration issues

Since 2013, the occupational disease criteria of the Enforcement Decree Industrial Accidents Compensation Insurance Act has included “leukemia or NPC caused by formaldehyde exposure” [2]. However, there is little evidence regarding the cumulative exposure level, minimum exposure duration, extent of exposure, and combined exposure or latent period. The results from the NCI cohort and the World Trade Center Health Program suggest latent periods of approximately 15 years for NPC and 2 years for LHM, based on statistical modeling and epidemiological studies [19, 46, 66]. In addition, the EU’s “Information notices on occupational diseases: a guide to diagnosis” suggest a 10-year latent period for NPC and 6 months for the minimum exposure duration, despite the absence of definitive scientific evidence [63]. The results from NCI cohort studies also suggest that peak exposures of ≥4.0 ppm were important for LHM and Hodgkin lymphoma [20, 47]. Finally, there is a considerable risk of combined formaldehyde exposure, as the known environmental risk factors for NPC include Epstein-Barr virus infection, consuming salted fish and reserved food spicy food, chronic ear-nose-and-throat conditions, and occupational exposures (e.g., wood dust, industrial heat or combustion products, cotton dust, and solvents, such as phenoxy acid and chlorophenol). These factors must also be considered when determining whether cases are eligible for compensation [67, 68]. Moreover, exposure to benzene, 1,3-butadiene, or ethylene oxide is also an important risk for LHM [69].


The IARC and NTP have classified formaldehyde as a definite human carcinogen, although the US EPA, ACGIH, and EU CLP disagree with this classification [4,5,6,7]. A few countries, including South Korea, have also listed formaldehyde as an occupational carcinogen [2, 9,10,11] because of the relatively low risks of NPC or LHM in meta-analyses and cohort studies (vs. other occupational cancers). Furthermore, it is difficult to quantify FORMALDEHYDE exposure and NPC has a very low incidence (approximately 1/100,000 population) [70]. However, there is sufficient epidemiological evidence to confirm associations with LHM and Hodgkin lymphoma, especially in terms of peak exposure, based on a recent update of the NCI cohort, three recent meta-analyses, and a nested case-control study of embalmers [4, 47].

In South Korea, the peak exposure in various industries was 2.70–14.8 ppm, and the TWA exposure level was 1.0–62.5 ppm in work-environment measurements. Thus, the risk of NPC or LHM could be increased among South Korean pathologists, anatomy students, and furniture workers with a peak exposure of ≥4 ppm [13,14,15, 17]. In most regions, the age-standardized incidence of NPC among men and women is < 1/100,000 person-years [70]. However, dramatically elevated rates are observed in the Cantonese population of southern China (including Hong Kong) [68]. These regional differences may be related to environmental risk factors, such as Epstein-Barr virus infection, and/or diet [67]. Thus, we suggest that both occupational exposure and environmental risk factors should be considered in the process of approving LHM cases for workers’ compensation.

The present study provided a review of the recent epidemiological evidence regarding the relationships between formaldehyde exposure and NPC or LHM, as well as a discussion regarding factors that could influence the recognition of formaldehyde-related cancers as occupational cancers. However, there is insufficient data regarding peak exposure levels and average exposure levels in various South Korean industries and jobs. Thus, additional studies are needed to help develop compensation policy and achieve scientific consensus.


We identified causal relationships and significant dose-response relationships between formaldehyde exposure and NPC, all LHM, and Hodgkin lymphoma. Furthermore, it appears that peak exposure is the most relevant factor when considering whether to officially recognize formaldehyde-related occupational cancers. Therefore, it is important to control formaldehyde exposure to protect workers and prevent them from developing NPC or LHM.



American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists


Environmental Protection Agency


European Union Occupational Disease Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures


International Agency for Research on Cancer


International Labor Organization


lymphohematopoietic malignancies


National Cancer Institute


nasopharyngeal cancer


National Toxicology Program


threshold limit value-time weighted average


  1. 1.

    Song J, Kim I, Choi BS. The scope and specific criteria of compensation for occupational diseases in Korea. J Korean Med Sci. 2014;29(Suppl):S32–9.

  2. 2.

    Kim I, Kim EA, Kim JY. Compensation for occupational cancer. J Korean Med Sci. 2014;29(Suppl):S40–6.

  3. 3.

    IARC. Formaldehyde, 2-butoxyethanol and 1-tert-butoxypropan-2-ol. Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 2006;88:39–325.

  4. 4.

    IARC. A review of human carcinogens: chemical agents and related occupations: formadehyde. Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum. 2012;100F:401–35.

  5. 5.

    EPA. IRIS toxicological review of formaldehyde-inhalation assessment (external review of draft). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2010.

  6. 6.

    Eurpoean Composites Industry Association (2014). New classification for formaldehyde and styrene: make sure that your classification, label and safety data sheet (SDS) are correct!, EU, 6th adaptation to technical progress (ATP) to the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP) regulation. Belgium.

  7. 7.

    American Conference of Govermantal Industrial Hygienists. Occupational exposure limits for formaldehyde. Cincinnati, OH: ACGIH; 2009.

  8. 8.

    International Labor Organization. Identification and recognition of occupational diseases: criteria for incorporating diseases in the ILO list of occupational diseases. Geneva: International labour office; 2010.

  9. 9.

    Kim EA, Kang SK. Historical review of the list of occupational diseases recommended by the International Labour Organization. Ann Occup Environ Med. 2013; 25: 14.

  10. 10.

    European commission. Report on the current situation in relation to occupational diseases’ systems in EU Member States and EFTA/EEA countries, in particular relative to Commission Recommendation 2003/670/EC concerning the European Schedule of Occupational Diseases and gathering of data on relevant related aspects. 2013.

  11. 11.

    Workers’ compensation act, cf. consolidated act no. 848 of September 9, 2009. Appendix 1. List of occupational diseases reported on or after January 1, 2005. Denmark; 2009.

  12. 12.

    kim E-A, Yoo K, Ko K. The Prevalence of Occupational Carcinogen Exposure in Korean Workers (I). Incheon, Korea: Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute; 2011.

  13. 13.

    Park JY, Zong MS. A study on woker-expoure to formaldehyde in some histological laboratories of hospitals. Korean Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1998;8(1):95–104.

  14. 14.

    Park SY, Kim CY, Kim JY, Sakong J. The health effects of formaldehyde during an anatomy dissection course. Korean J Occup Environ Med. 2016;18(3):171–8.

  15. 15.

    Kim JH, Kim DJ, Kim H. A study on exposure-worker to formaldehyde in the endoscopy unit of hospitals. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg. 2009;19(3):195–201.

  16. 16.

    Lee N, Lee B, Jeong S, Yi GY, Shin J. Work environments and exposure to hazardous substances in Korean tire manufacturing. Saf Health Work. 2012;3:130–9.

  17. 17.

    Yoo K, Lee MY. Identification of process generating formaldehyde in a furniture manufacturer. Analytical Science & Technology. 2014;27(5):243–7.

  18. 18.

    Gu D, Lee C, Lee J, Lee S, Yun S, Han A, Kim H, Park Y, Jeong S, Moon C. Exposure to formaldehyde of ambulatory care nurses in university hospital. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg. 2014;24(4):446–52.

  19. 19.

    Hauptmann M, Lubin JH, Stewart PA, et al. Mortality from solid cancers among workers in formaldehyde industries. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159:1117–30.

  20. 20.

    Freeman LEB, Blair A, Lubin JH, Stewart PA, Hayes RB, Hoover RN, Hauptmann M. Mortality from solid tumors among Workers in Formaldehyde Industries: an update of the NCI cohort. Am J Ind Med. 2013;56:1015–26.

  21. 21.

    Marsh GM, Youk AO. Reevaluation of mortality risks from nasopharyngeal cancer in the formaldehyde cohort study of the National Cancer Institute. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2005;42:275–83.

  22. 22.

    Marsh GM, Youk AO, Morfeld P. Mis-specified and non-robust mortality risk models for nasopharyngeal cancer in the National Cancer Institute formaldehyde worker cohort study. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2007;47:59–67.

  23. 23.

    Coggon D, Harris EC, Poole J, Palmer KT. Extended follow-up of a cohort of british chemical workers exposed to formaldehyde. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1608–5.

  24. 24.

    Coggon D, Ntani G, Harris EC, Palmer KT. Upper airway cancer, myeloid leukemia, and other cancers in a cohort of British chemical workers exposed to formaldehyde. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;179(11):1301–11.

  25. 25.

    Pinkerton LE, Hein MJ, Stayner LT. Mortality among a cohort of garment workers exposed to formaldehyde: an update. Occup Environ Med. 2004;61:193–200.

  26. 26.

    Meyers AR, Pinkerton LE, Hein MJ. Cohort mortality study of garment industry workers exposed to formaldehyde: update and internal comparisons. Am J Ind Med. 2013;56:1027–39.

  27. 27.

    Siew SS, Kauppinen T, Kyyrönen P, Heikkilä P, Pukkala E. Occupational exposure to wood dust and formaldehyde and risk of nasal, nasopharyngeal, and lung cancer among Finnish men. Cancer Management Reasearch. 2012;4:223–32.

  28. 28.

    Pira E, Romano C, Federica V, La Vecchia C. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic neoplasms and other causes in a cohort of laminated plastic workers exposed to formaldehyde. Cancer Causes Control. 2014;25:1343–9.

  29. 29.

    Roush GC, Walrath J, Stayner LT, et al. Nasopharyngeal cancer, sinonasal cancer, and occupations related to formaldehyde: a case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1987;79:1221–4.

  30. 30.

    West S, Hildesheim A. Dosemeci M (1993). Non-viral risk factors for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in the Philippines: results from a case-control study. Int J Cancer. 1993;55:722–7.

  31. 31.

    Vaughan TL, Stewart PA, Teschke K, et al. Occupational exposure to formaldehyde and wood dust and nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Occup Environ Med. 2000;57:376–84.

  32. 32.

    Olsen JH, Jensen SP, Hink M, et al. Occupational formaldehyde exposure and increased nasal cancer risk in man. Int J Cancer. 1984;34:639–44.

  33. 33.

    Vaughan TL, Strader C, Davis S, Daling JR. Formaldehyde and cancers of the pharynx, sinus and nasal cavity: I. Occupational exposures. Int J Cancer. 1986;38:677–83.

  34. 34.

    Armstrong RW, Imrey PB, Lye MS, et al. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma in Malaysian Chinese: occupational exposures to particles, formaldehyde and heat. Int J Epidemiol. 2000;29:991–8.

  35. 35.

    Hildesheim A, Dosemeci M, Chan CC, et al. Occupational exposure to wood, formaldehyde, and solvents and risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2001;10:1145–53.

  36. 36.

    Collins JJ, Acquavella JF, Esmen NA. An updated meta-analysis of formaldehyde exposure and upper respiratory tract cancers. J Occup Environ Med. 1997;39:639–51.

  37. 37.

    Bosetti C, JK ML, Tarone RE, et al. Formaldehyde and cancer risk: a quantitative review of cohort studies through 2006. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:29–43.

  38. 38.

    Bachand AM, Mundt KA, Mundt DJ, Montgomery RR. Epidemiological studies of formaldehyde exposure and risk of leukemia and nasopharyngeal cancer: a meta-analysis. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2010;40:85–100.

  39. 39.

    Walrath J & Fraumeni JF Jr. Mortality patterns among embalmers. Int J Cancer 1983, 31: 407–411.

  40. 40.

    Walrath J, Fraumeni JF Jr. Cancer and other causes of death among embalmers. Cancer Res. 1984;44:4638–41.

  41. 41.

    Levine RJ, Andjelkovich DA, Shaw LK. The mortality of Ontario undertakers and a review of formaldehyde-related mortality studies. J Occup Med. 1984;26:740–6.

  42. 42.

    Stroup NE, Blair A, Brain EGE. Cancer and other causes of death in anatomists. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1986;77:1217–24.

  43. 43.

    Logue JN, Barrick MK, Jessup GL Jr. Mortality of radiologists and pathologists in the radiation registry of physicians. J Occup Med. 1986;28:91–9.

  44. 44.

    Hayes RB, Blair A, Stewart PA, et al. Mortality of U.S. embalmers and funeral directors. Am J Ind Med. 1990;18:641–52.

  45. 45.

    Hall A, Harrington JM, Aw TC. Mortality study of British pathologists. Am J Ind Med. 1991;20:83–9.

  46. 46.

    Hauptmann M, Lubin JH, Stewart PA, et al. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers in formaldehyde industries. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1615–23.

  47. 47.

    LEB F, Blair A, Lubin JH, et al. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic malignancies among workers in formaldehyde industries: the National Cancer Institute cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:751–61.

  48. 48.

    Checkoway H, Dell LD, Boffetta P, Gallagher AE, Crawford L, Lees PS, Mundt KA. Formaldehyde exposure and mortality risks from acute myeloid leukemia and other Lymphohematopoietic malignancies in the US National Cancer Institute cohort study of Workers in Formaldehyde Industries. J Occup Env Med. 2015;57(7):785–94.

  49. 49.

    Linos A, Blair A, Cantor KP, et al. Leukemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among embalmers and funeral directors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1990;82:66.

  50. 50.

    Partanen T, Kauppinen T, Luukkonen R, et al. Malignant lymphomas and leukemias, and exposures in the wood industry: an industry-based case-referent study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1993;64:593–6.

  51. 51.

    Blair A, Zheng T, Linos A, et al. Occupation and leukemia: a population-based case-control study in Iowa and Minnesota. Am J Ind Med. 2001;40:3–14.

  52. 52.

    Hauptmann M, Stewart PA, Lubin JH, et al. Mortality from lymphohematopoietic malignancies and brain cancer among embalmers exposed to formaldehyde. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1696–708.

  53. 53.

    Collins JJ, Lineker GA. A review and meta-analysis of formaldehyde exposure and leukemia. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2004;40:81–91.

  54. 54.

    Zhang L, Steinmaus C, Eastmond DA, et al. Formaldehyde exposure and leukemia: a new meta-analysis and potential mechanisms. Mutat Res. 2009;681:150–68.

  55. 55.

    Schwilk L, Zhang L, Smith MT, Smith AH, Steinmaus C. Formaldehyde and leukemia: am updated meta-analysis and evaluation of bias. J Occup Environ Med. 2010;52:878–86.

  56. 56.

    Checkoway H, Boffetta P, Mundt DJ, Mundt KA. Critical review and synthesis of the epidemiologic evidence on formaldehyde exposure and risk of leukemia and other lymphohematopoietic malignancies. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23(11):1747–76.

  57. 57.

    Morfeld P. Formaldehyde and leukemia: missing evidence! Cancer Causes Control. 2013;24:203–4.

  58. 58.

    Georgieva AV, Kimbell JS, Schlosser PM. A distributed-parameter model for formaldehyde uptake and disposition in the rat nasal lining. Inhal Toxicol. 2003;15:1435–63.

  59. 59.

    Zhang L, Tang X, Rothman N, et al. Occupational exposure to formaldehyde, hematotoxicity, and leukemia-specific chromosome changes in cultured myeloid progenitor cells. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2010;19:80–8.

  60. 60.

    Lan Q, et al. Chromosome-wide aneuploidy study of cultured circulating myeloid progenitor cells from workers occupationally exposed to formaldehyde. Carcinogenesis. 2015;36(1):160–7.

  61. 61.

    National Toxicology Program. Report on carcinogens, Thirteenth Edition. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 2016. Available at:

  62. 62.

    Finnish Institute of Occupational Health. Memorandum from the Occupational Cancer Working Group 2013. Finnish institute of occupational health.Helsinki.

  63. 63.

    European commission. Information notices on occupational diseases: a guide to diagnosis. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Luxembourg. 2009:2009.

  64. 64.

    Jung PK, Kim I, Park I, Kim C, Kim EA, Roh J. A case of mutiple myeloma in a poultry worker. Ann Occup Environ Med. 2014;26:35.

  65. 65.

    Choi M, Yoo KM, Park CY, Park HH, Kim HR. A case of myelodysplatic syndrome in a worker assembling medium density fibreboard. Procedding of the 53th conference of Korean society of occupational and environmental medicine. P415. (Korean).

  66. 66.

    Howard J. Minimum Latency & Type of Cancer. Replaces administrator’s white paper on minimum latency & types of cancer. Centers for disease control and prevention. 2013.

  67. 67.

    Chang ET, Adami HO. The enigmatic epidemiology of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15:1765–77.

  68. 68.

    Jia WH, Qin HD. Non-viral environmental risk factors for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a systematic review. In Semin Cancer Biol. 2012;22(2):117–26.

  69. 69.

    Eastmond DA, Keshava N, Sonawane B. Lymphohematopoietic cancers induced by chemicals and other agents and their implications for risk evaluation: an overview. Mutarion Research. 2014;761:40–64.

  70. 70.

    Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:87–108.

Download references




This work was supported by Ministry of Employment and Labor.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable

Author information

SCK drafted the article. SCK, JS, and JP searched and assisted the related references. IK and JS supported and advised medical view. All of the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Correspondence to Inah Kim.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark


  • Formaldehyde
  • Nasopharyngeal neoplasm
  • Leukemia
  • Workers’ compensation
  • Occupational diseases